Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Balinder Yadav vs Sunil Kumar Sangwan on 11 September, 2024

Author: Neena Bansal Krishna

Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna

                                    $~41
                                    *           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                    +           CRL.M.C. 2199/2020 & CRL.M.A.1003/2021
                                                BALINDER YADAV                                                                 .....Petitioner
                                                            Through:                                          Mr. Rajeev Sharma, advocate.

                                                                                      versus

                                                SUNIL KUMAR SANGWAN                     .....Respondent
                                                              Through: Mr. Prag chawla, Ms. Jaspreet kaur
                                                                       and    Ms.   Muskan       Aggarwal,
                                                                       Advocates.
                                                CORAM:
                                                HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
                                                                                      ORDER

% 11.09.2024

1. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been filed challenging the Order dated 04.03.2020 passed in Complaint Case No.23112/2016 titled "Sunil Kumar Sangwan vs. Balinder Yadav" whereby the Application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant for placing on record the Promissory Note of 2012 which he has found recently while going through his old documents, to be placed on record and complainant be permitted for his further re-examination, has been allowed.

2. The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that this promissory note was not on record and there was no mention of this promissory note ever by the complainant at any stage. It is only after the evidence of the petitioner/accused had been closed, that this application seeking permission to place promissory note on record This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/09/2024 at 21:36:33 was filed.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submits that this revision may be allowed and the application under Section 311 Cr.P.C which had been filed may be dismissed.

4. Submissions Heard.

5. As conceded by learned counsel on behalf of the Complainant, the Revision is allowed. The impugned Order dated 04.03.2020 allowing the Application under Section 311 Cr.P.C of the complainant, is hereby set aside.

6. Revision Petition is disposed of.

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 rk This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/09/2024 at 21:36:33